They just don't get it.


Oregon House Republicans have elected Rep. Wayne Scott (R-Canby) as House Republican Leader for the 2007 legislative session.

“Oregon House Republicans have re-grouped, and have chosen a new approach for leadership,” Rep. Scott said. “We will move forward and work with House Democrats in a bi-partisan manner to address the issues facing Oregon.”

The caucus also elected Rep. Bruce Hanna (R-Roseburg) as Deputy Republican Leader; Rep. Dennis Richardson as Republican Whip, and; Rep. Gene Whisnant (R-Bend) as Deputy Republican Whip.


  • gl (unverified)

    they just dont get it"... "Pathetic"

    Just because some people disagree with us liberals does not make them pathetic. Lets work together to move forward.

  • Jeremy (unverified)

    gl -

    Yes, because those Republicans sure shared in the spirit of bipartisanship when they were in control.

    Give it a rest.

  • Delia (unverified)

    Here's the rule: is it in our interest, long-term or short-term, to act bipartisan, forgiving, and all that? Does it work to get us what we want or need? Well . . . . then that's what we do. If another strategy works better, then figure out what that is, and follow it.

    Think before you act, in all cases, especially when you're considering handing out revenge.

  • Former Constituent (unverified)

    I lived in Canby for 18 years, just moved out a few months ago. Wayne Scott was my representative in the house, but his behavior disgusted me. That the Republicans chose him shows that they have no interest in working with us, that they are going to be obstructionists, and just do their best to impede the Democratic majority from accomplishing its goals. At least, thats what it tells me.

  • Eric (unverified)

    Hard line Repugnicans are spiteful, mean sprited people. I wouldn't be surprised by the end of the session, they start acting like whining 6-year-olds who don't get their way and want to retaliate in a like manner of a 6 year old.

  • Jeremy (unverified)

    The very act of choosing Wayne Scott illustrates to me that the Republicans have no intention of behaving in a bi-partisan manner. I'm not talking about revenge at all. I'm talking about doing what's best for the State of Oregon. Karen Minnis sitting in her teeny tiny office is revenge enough for me. In fact, I'm smiling right now just picturing it :)

  • Joe12Pack (unverified)

    Democrat good. Republican bad.

  • (Show?)

    Democrat - Bipartisan Democracy, Republican - Partisan Theocracy

  • Behind the Scenes (unverified)

    The D's ought to be looking for completely meaningless and cost-free nice things they can do to demonstrate their bipartisanship. The knives ought to be carefully hidden in the back. Leave Minnis in her large office and charge her by the square foot out of her regular office budget. Big office, no staff.

  • Bert Lowry (unverified)

    I find it kind of cute that the House Republicans want some sort of commity and minority rights now that they're in the minority. Can they be bi-partisan? Can you teach an old dog new tricks?

    Even though they were the ones who used their majority to marginalize the minority, I do think we should bring back the old commity. It makes for better government.

    But Wayne Scott has demonstrated that he is unwilling to behave in a friendly, bi-partisan manner. I think his election demonstrates that the Republicans want to continue playing hardball.

    Any rules changes to benefit the minority should be made under the condition that someone besides Scott (or Minnis) is elected minority Republican leader. Old dogs may learn new tricks, but it takes a lot of training. Scott needs to be trained.

  • Silence Dogood (unverified)

    Scott gave at least $30K of GOP House Majority (Caucus) Funds funds to the No on 45 campaign - to Scott, this was a more important beneficiary than GOP House candidates; a prepayment on his power insurance.

    This is the kind of Republican who will play ball with the Democrats. There will be no problems. Watch for where Gary Wilhelms pops up.

  • (Show?)

    Wayne Scott was the GOP's enforcer during the last session. He was chosen as leader because they hope to keep the corporate lobby -- which helped GOP house candidates raise $2 million more than their democratic opponents -- in line.

    His selection is emblemmatic of two things:

    First, they don't intend to work in a bipartisan fashion. Were that not the case, they would have selected Brian Boquist, a staunch conservative, but reasonable, and willing to work in a bi-partisan fashion.

    Second, the selection of leadership in the GOP caucus is still predicated on ones' ability to raise corporate dollars for future campaigns.

    Frankly, I think his selection to leadership helps Democrats in their effort to reach out to moderate Republicans in building a bipartisan agenda for several reasons: He won't be able to enforce discipline in his caucus the way he was able to last session. Corporate money is going to be spread more evenly between the two caucuses in this session, and Scott's influence and ability to cut funding off at the knees for members of his own caucus who don't follow the party line will be greratly diminished.

    Finally, I've seen several people thank Rob Brading, myself, Jim Gilbertson, Jim Gilbert, and others in this thread. Mike Caudle is every bit as much a hero as Brading was, in my book. He took on an opponent who is every bit as mean-spirited and ruthless as Brading, and he did it without 1/10th of the institutional support that Brading had.

    We should thank our lucky stars that a young man of his caliber ran for public office in this session and encourage him to run again -- next time with more support.

    • Sal
  • Press Release (unverified)

    In other news.... The Department of Labor reported a sudden upward move in the unemployment rate today. The rate incresed from 4.4% to 5.5% in a move that analysts attribute entirely to the sudden and unexpected lay-off of thousands of Republican staffers in Washington DC and state capitols across the nation. One of the recently unemployed staff members of a former Republican Senator stated that it was unlikely he will be able to find work in his industry because his influence peddleing and money laundering skills are no longer in demeand in the new Democratic controlled Senate, House, or various state legislatures. He said he will likely re-train at his local community college after Democrats are able to restore funding for Pell Grants.

  • (Show?)

    WAYNE'S WORLD: The Sequal.

    The House R's should have been treated much more fairly than Leadership treated the D's. However, with this dumbassed move, they should be treated equally as poorly: no legislation, no matter how good, with their names on it have should a chance at seeing the light of day.

  • Rep. Peter Buckley (unverified)

    I just want to echo what Sal posted. The Jims, Gilbert and Gilbertson, along with Sal and Rob, ran remarkable campaigns, and it stings not to have them heading to Salem for the next session.

    And, as the excellent Mr. Peralta states, Mike Caudle is another clear hero of the overall effort. We could not have gotten to majority, and consigned Mr. Scott to minority status, without the efforts of all of these candidates, as well as undersung candidates like Brian Grisham, Connie Garcia, Howard Owens, Mike Moran and a host of others. This was a rare roster of outstanding people willing to step forward, and I hope all of them will be willing to at least consider stepping forward again. I've learned a lot in this cycle, and while we made progress in offering assistance in training, etc., I know we need to find the way to provide more support to candidates of the quality that we were blessed with this year.

    As for my GOP colleagues' selection of Rep. Scott as Minority Leader, I have to say that I was surprised. I can only hope that the approach to the work is different in 2005 than it was in 2007. The GOP approach certainly didn't work for the state or for their party in the last session--the end results of the session and the election results this week are clear proof of that. We all--Democrat and Republican alike--very much need a different tone and different approach in 2007.

  • Gil Johnson (unverified)

    Despite my glee at the overall results of the election this year, I got skunked on my own personal contributions. I gave all of my money to Brading, Peralta and Caudle--which combined wasn't as much as a new energy efficient dryer, I just learned. But they damn well better run again and get a lot more support from us in 2008.

  • Chuck Butcher (unverified)

    I could give a rat's patoot whom the R's elected, what I do care about is the good of the state. If that means treating the R's better than they did the D's, so be it. As far as fixing the rules goes, do what is right, screw what they did. You don't get to be good guys by aping the bad guys.

    One caveate, when you stick that hand across the aisle, if you get it back you better count the fingers.

  • Buckman Res (unverified)

    no legislation, no matter how good, with their names on it have should a chance at seeing the light of day.

    That’s more like it! Screw the voters, it’s all about the party and maintaining power! The good of Oregon be dammed!

    I’m looking forward to seeing the same progressive attitude on the national level.

  • steven andresen (unverified)

    I can understand this sentiment,

    " legislation, no matter how good, with their names on it have should (have) a chance at seeing the light of day..."

    As I understand the R's practice these past few years, they would shut out any bill put forward by the d's, no matter what its merit, just to prevent the d's from having a positive record of accomplishment to run on. This practice, in itself, shows that the R's were not interested in the "good of Oregon." D's should point out that this practice showed the R's were all about maintaining power. I thank Buckman Res for pointing this out.

    I do agree with B. Res that this should not be a policy for the D's, despite how the R's have relied on it. It seems to be inneffective as an elective strategy, and damaging to the state.

    If any of the R's want to promote a bill that the D's think would benefit the state and the people of Oregon, then the d's should get behind it on its merits. However, if the R's want to promote a bill that would harm the state and it's people, then the d's should oppose such a bill, vocally and with all their voices. They should not support a bill proposed by the R's just to try to avoid appearing to be partisan or vindictive. If their bills are bad, then make everyone aware that the R's haven't considered their ideas well enough.

    Of course the d's are committed to promoting and protecting the welfare of the state and its people.

  • Zak J. (unverified)

    What the Republicans "just don't get" is that the election they just lost was about, among other things, openness and honesty in government.

    Naming Scott as their leader only weeks after the scandal broke about his secret, unreported trips to Hawaii as a guest of the liquor lobby shows that the Republicans either have amazingly short memories or expect the voters to. It's easy to be conservative or Republican and have ethics, but the Republican party elite themselves look more like the mafia all the time. It's the GOP voters who should be the most pissed about this.

  • (Show?)

    Zak: Bingo.

    There are some decent people that they could have chosen for their leadership. Wayne Scott isn't one of them.

    This choice signals that they're going to be mean, horrible, partisan obstructionists. The "bipartisanship" piffle they're putting out now (and only now!) is a distraction at best, a deception at worst.

  • tazir (unverified)


    I say pitch 'em off the Multnomah Falls and watch 'em go SPLAT at the bottom. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

  • Chris (unverified)
    <h2>I'll make one bold prediction: Wayne Scott will do whatever is best for himself.</h2>
in the news 2006

connect with blueoregon